5.1	Canadian Update

At present, Canadians are protected by National Air Quality Objectives, which have served as a basis for development of air quality management plans and international agreements. Use of the objectives by provincial and municipal government has been at their discretion, with some adopting the air quality objectives either as guidelines or as legally enforceable standards.

The existing Canadian government ambient air quality objectives for particulate matter are currently in transition. The National Ambient Air Quality Objectives are still in place for Total Suspended Particulate (TSP), however, as there is no size differentiation, they do not reflect the current scientific understanding of the health effects of particles. Some provinces already have provincial objectives or standards in place for fine particulate (PM _2.5 ) and the more coarse fraction (PM ₁₀ ) based on observed health effects. Unlike the new Canada-wide Standard, none of these has a specific timeline for achievement or formal reporting or accountability requirements. Prevailing particulate standards in Canada are summarized in Table 3.

The current air quality objective for ozone was established in 1976 under the Canadian Clean Air Act (CAA), as summarized in Table 4.

In January of 1998, the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment signed the Canada-wide Harmonization Accord, committing the provincial, territorial and federal governments to the implementation of harmonized programs to address a number of environmental issues.

As one outcome, Canada-wide standards are to be developed for mercury, dioxins and furans, benzene, particulate matter, total petroleum hydrocarbons in soil, and ground level ozone.

The Canada-wide Standard (CWS) process considered PM and ozone together because they share common origins and both contribute to the formation of smog. The proposed standards represent a balance between human health and environmental protection and the feasibility and costs of reducing emissions.

Particulate matter and ozone are air pollutants associated with adverse health effects for a significant portion of the Canadian population. Research suggests PM and ozone are non-threshold toxins, that is, there is no concentration or level which can be considered absolutely safe for humans. Other adverse environmental effects include reduced visibility due to PM in the atmosphere and vegetation damage due to abnormal levels of ozone.

Ground-level ozone is a secondary pollutant produced by the chemical reaction of two precursor pollutants: nitrogen oxides (NO _X ) and volatile organic compounds (VOC's). Particulate matter can be both a primary and secondary pollutant. Primary particles are emitted directly into the atmosphere, while secondary particles are formed through chemical reactions involving VOCs, NO _X s, sulphates, and ammonia.

Ozone is a particular concern in the summer because the sun encourages its formation through reactions of the precursors. While PM is a year-round concern, maximum concentrations in the atmosphere of the finer fractions (PM _2.5 ) can also be episodic. These two pollutants and their precursors can be transported considerable distances in the atmosphere; therefore, quantities measured at a given site are frequently a mixture of emissions from local and distant sources.

In November of 1999, the Canadian Environment Ministers accepted, in principle, a number of proposed standards, including standards for particulate matter and ozone. The proposed Canada-wide standard for particulate matter is focused on the fine particulate fraction of PM, smaller than 2.5 microns aerodynamic diameter, known as PM _2.5 .

• the recommended CWS for PM _2.5 is 30 µg/m ³ averaged over 24 hours, and is to be achieved by the year 2010. Achievement is based on the 98 ^th percentile ambient measurement annually, averaged over three consecutive years.

The Ministers are also considering two options for the regulation of coarse (PM ₁₀ ) Particulate Matter. Option A is a standard of 60 µg/m ³ , averaged over 24 hours, to be achieved by the year 2010. Option B is a standard of 50 µg/m ³ , 24 hour average time, to be achieved by the year 2010.

Individual jurisdictions can continue to apply their existing air quality guidelines for the coarser fraction of PM to guide management actions.

• the recommended CWS for ozone is 65 ppb, averaged over 8 hours and based on the 4 ^th highest annual measurement averaged over three years, to be achieved by the year 2015.

The Ministers are also considering two options with regard to the ozone standard of 65 ppb, 8 hour averaged time; Option A, achievement by the year 2012 or Option B, introduction of the standard in 2010.

As part of the implementation strategy for these two contaminants, the governments will strive to maintain air quality through use of best available economically feasible technologies on new sources and upgrades to existing sources in those areas currently below the proposed standards. The governments will also aggressively pursue further reductions in the transboundary flow into Canada of PM and ozone and their precursor pollutants.

For those areas where continuous excessive concentrations are primarily due to transboundary flow of PM and ozone or their precursor pollutants from the United States or from another province or territory, given that "best efforts" have been made to reduce the contribution of sources within the jurisdiction, these areas will be identified as "transboundary influence communities," unable to achieve the standards until further reductions in transboundary flow occur . In particular, for the Province of Ontario, a 45 per cent reduction in NO _X and VOC emissions from 1990 levels by the year 2015 will be considered the province's appropriate level of effort toward achieving the standard, and any remaining ambient ozone levels above the standard will be considered a product of transboundary flow from the US of ozone and its precursor pollutants.

By the end of the year 2005, additional scientific, technical, and economic analyses are to be completed and available for possible establishment, revision or supplementing of the PM and ozone standard for the year 2015, as appropriate. Any need for revision to the standards is to be determined by the end of the year 2010. The Ministers are also considering a shortened review period to either the end of the year 2004 or the year 2003.

Reporting under the standards is to begin with comprehensive reports at five year intervals beginning in the year 2006, with annual reports to commence in the year 2011. The annual reports will be limited in scope, containing summary information on PM and ozone and identifying communities where ambient levels are exceeding or approaching the CWS levels.

Five year reports will be comprehensive, including assessment of ambient levels and trends in communities and identifying those where levels are exceeding or approaching the standards, information on PM and Ozone precursor emissions and trends, description of smog management efforts, progress with implementing established plans, and actions to maintain 'clean' areas.

Achievement of the standards will be based on community oriented monitoring sites , that is, sites where people live, work and play, rather than at the expected maximum impact point for specific emission sources.

The final determination on these standards is expected to occur at the next meeting of the CCME in June, 2000.

Recommendation

The Commission encourage the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) to adopt, during this year, a Canada-wide Standard for ozone of 65 ppb, 8 hour average, to be attained no later than the year 2010.

In reviewing the evolution of the fine particulate (PM _2.5 ) regulations in the United States, the Board noted in previous reports that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), through its Federal Reference Method (FRM) for the measurement of fine particulate concentrations, established instrumentation distinctly different from that used for such measurements in Canada - the TEOM or Tapered Element Oscillating Balance Monitor. The issue of comparability or correlation between measurements derived from these two techniques was seen as of continuing import in the coming years as environmental agencies attempt to compare fine particulate data from sites adjacent to the international boundary or within the influence of the other country.

While US/Canada co-operative studies are proceeding at sites in the Canadian Maritimes and Saskatchewan, it is worth noting that the Canadian agencies use a number of instruments for this measurement - the TEOMs, as mentioned - but also manual instruments that are generally equivalent to those described in the FRM protocol. Data are available from a location where these two types of instruments (the TEOM and the FRM Partisol sampler) have been measuring fine particulate, and, as the graphs indicate, in the Toronto/Egbert Winter/Spring 1998 Study (Figure 1) and Spring/Summer 1998 study (Figure 2), comparison between the two methodologies was reasonably good.

Preliminary indications are that, while no simple correlations can be applied to the two measurement processes, as relationships could prove to be day and site specific, on a larger scale, the possibility of relatively good agreement exists. The output of the Maritimes and Saskatchewan studies should define this relationship further. Environment Canada also has requested funding for deployment of FRM samplers at a number of locations in the border areas of all provinces and is awaiting a response.

5.2.1

PM Standards

On July 17, 1997, the US Environmental Protection Agency announced new standards for particulate matter (PM). The USEPA revised the primary (health-based) PM standards by adding a new annual PM _2.5 and a new 24-hour PM _2.5 standard, while retaining the current annual PM ₁₀ standard and adjusting the PM ₁₀ 24-hour standard. The USEPA also revised the secondary (general welfare-based) standards by making them identical to the primary standards. A summary is given below and in Table 5.

Summary of Final Rule

PM _2.5 Standards (currently still in deliberation in court)

• EPA added two new primary PM _2.5 standards set at 15 µg/m ³ (annual arithmetic mean) and 65 µg/m ³ (24-hour average), to provide increased protection against the PM-related effects found in the community studies.
• The final rule established a new form for the annual PM _2.5 standard. Areas would be in compliance with the new annual PM _2.5 standard when the 3 year average of the annual arithmetic mean PM _2.5 concentrations is less than or equal to 15 µg/m ³ .
• For the new 24 hour PM _2.5 standard, the form is based on the 98 ^th percentile of 24-hour PM _2.5 concentrations in 1 year (averaged over 3 years), at the population-oriented monitoring site with the highest measured values in an area.

PM ₁₀ Standards

• EPA retained the annual PM ₁₀ standard of 50 µg/m ³ to protect against effects from both short and long term exposure to coarse particles.
• EPA revised the PM ₁₀ 24-hour standard of 150 µg/m ³ by replacing the 1-expected-exceedance methodology with a 99 ^th percentile methodology, averaged over 3 years, to protect against short term exposure to coarse particles.

The Clean Air Act provides that ambient air quality standards be reviewed every five years. Along with the implementation of new PM _2.5 and PM ₁₀ standards, the USEPA is considering the need to address the coarse fraction of particles within PM ₁₀ , known as PM _10-2.5 . This review entails the writing of a new Criteria document.

Summary of Final Rule (in deliberation in Court)

Primary Standard (see also Table 5)

• The USEPA replaced the previous 1-hour primary standard of 0.12 ppm with a new 8 hour standard set at 0.08 ppm. An area will attain the standard when the 3 year average of the annual 4 ^th -highest daily maximum 8 hour concentrations is less than or equal to 0.08ppm.
• The USEPA has changed the form of the standard from an expected-exceedance form to a concentration based form, because it more directly relates to ozone concentrations associated with health effects.

Court Action resulting in the USEPA Reinstatement of 1-Hour Ozone Standard

In July 1997, the USEPA promulgated the strict 8-hour standard and expected it to be implemented soon after, therefore, the agency revoked the 1-hour standard in areas that had, at a minimum, shown three consistent years of clean air.

However, on May 14, 1999, a Federal Court decision struck down and remanded the more stringent 8-hour standard. Therefore, in order to establish some measure to regulate air pollution in areas of the US that have been without standards since the 8-hour standard was struck down, the USEPA decided to reinstate the old 1-hour standard. On October 20, 1999, the USEPA proposed a rulemaking that would reinstate the one-hour ozone standard previously revoked by the agency in nearly 3,000 counties.

The reinstatement will affect some areas that had been designated as "attainment" for the the USEPA's 1-hour ozone standard and some that formerly were designated as "non-attainment" but where monitors showed clean air for three consecutive years. The areas formerly known as "non-attainment" were categorized into two groups:

• Group 1, had demonstrated three years of clean air history without any violations and also had developed maintenance and transportation conformity plans.

• Group 2, has shown three years of clean air data, but did not have any plans developed for maintenance and transportation conformity when the standard was revoked.

Affected areas will have to continue monitoring for ozone, and some areas will be subject to requirements intended to limit ozone formulation. These requirements include implementation of maintenance plans, transportation conformation and new source review requirements.

Tougher Smog Reduction Plans

The USEPA has requested that some of the most heavily polluted metropolitan areas submit more complete plans to reduce urban smog. Of the ten major areas that must complete detailed plans for reducing smog under the 1990 Clean Air Act, only one - Springfield Massachusetts - has fully met the USEPA's requirements. However, all other areas have made substantial progress, and the USEPA has indicated a willingness to lift sanctions under the Act if areas make good-faith efforts to comply with the standards. Data on ozone exceedance days in some of these communities are given in Table 6.

The metropolitan areas cited by the USEPA include: Baltimore, Washington D.C., Philadelphia, New York, Milwaukee, Houston, Hartford, Chicago and Atlanta. Of the metropolitan areas that did not meet the USEPA standards, four - including Washington - have already sent targets to the agency but have not submitted a final transportation emissions budget. The other areas fell short of the USEPA's emissions targets for reducing both VOC's and NO _X 's, components which contribute to smog. Officials from Baltimore and Washington have set a target date of 2005 to meet federal smog regulations. However, their plans heavily depend on anticipated pollution reductions in the west from power plants and other sources. To meet the standards, in 2004, the Baltimore-Washington region would only be allowed one smog violation day per summer, compared to the 11 that occurred last summer. The Washington D.C. area's plan has not been considered complete because it is not considered to include adequate projection of pollution levels from cars, trucks and other vehicles.

5.3.1

European Proposal on Reducing Ozone

A European proposal on reducing ozone is currently under consideration after the European Commission released a report citing numerous days of unhealthy levels of ozone in a number of cities over the summer of 1999. The annual report on ground-level ozone indicated that the ozone concentration at more than 1000 stations was above the threshold value set by the European Union's (EU) directive.

The current health protection threshold of 110 µg/m ³ (55 ppb) was exceeded on between 20 and 60 days in the Mediterranean countries of the EU, and between 10 and 35 days in the central countries, with some individual areas recording 80 days of exceedances. Violations of the health threshold are frequent, and even the information threshold of 180 µg/m ³ (90 ppb) of ozone was violated in most countries. Currently, the EU is reviewing a proposed ground-level ozone threshold of 120 µg/m ³ (60 ppb) (8-hour average); however, it faces considerable opposition particularly from the Mediterranean countries.

In the European Council Directive 1999/30/EC of April 22, 1999, limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, particulates and lead in ambient air, were established. The limit values for PM ₁₀ are listed in Table 7, and occur in two stages. The first stage has a target date of 2005, while stage 2 has a target of year 2010.

The member countries agree not to exceed the PM ₁₀ limit values in ambient air, however, there are exceptions allowed due to natural events and resuspension of particulates following the winter sanding of roads. The standards will be reviewed every five years, similar to US PM standards, to determine if changes in the limit value or conditions are needed.